Feed aggregator

Lezárulni látszik az a mintegy 4 hónapos fegyveres konfliktus, amely az Egyesült Államokat és Iránt, illetve Izraelt állította szembe egymással. A hétvégi genfi találkozón az amerikai és iráni fél aláírja ugyan a keretegyezményt, de ettől még a háborút kirobbantó kérdések megoldása nem következik be. Eddig úgy tűnik, az USA inkább tekinthető vesztesnek – véli Keresztes […]

Articolul Ködös keret, számtalan kérdőjellel apare prima dată în Kolozsvári Rádió Románia.

Context is a critical component of business and management research, shaping organisational behaviour and influencing outcomes. In management literature, it is widely acknowledged that “context counts” and “context matters”. Yet it is often present only implicitly, as a backdrop – an afterthought or a control variable – limiting the development of context-sensitive theories and marginalising indigenous perspectives on local phenomena. The field is thus regularly criticised for inadequate contextualisation of emerging economies’ studies, resulting in calls for researchers to “practise more context”. All this was truly relevant to me, as I faced this challenge in my PhD study. My PhD project focuses on the strategies of wineries from Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine – three post-Soviet countries aspiring to join the EU.

As a phenomenon to be understood and explained – an explanandum – eurointegration is best studied not in management research but in EU studies, a field that has spent decades building specific knowledge about it. This led me to engage directly with the context, by turning to the field in which it is most explicitly theorised. So, I had no excuse: I immersed myself in studying that context in depth.

However, for the core phenomena of management and business studies – firm strategy, internationalisation, sectoral adaptation, and so on – eurointegration plays the role of context, or explanans, in which such phenomena are embedded. For these firms, eurointegration is not simply a background condition; it structures the strategic environment in which they operate.

Yet eurointegration, even though it plays distinct roles in EU studies and management research (explanandum versus explanans), is what connects the two fields. You would expect them to talk to each other. But in practice, they rarely do and have mostly grown up in isolation. EU studies theorise integration in depth but seldom follows it down to the organisational level where it takes effect. Meanwhile, management research tends to label the entire process ‘eurointegration’ and move on, treating it as context without spelling out the mechanisms that make it matter.

Thus, in my PhD project, I tried to overcome this limitation by bridging the two fields – and the paper I presented at the forum explains how.

My approach rests on a distinction from accounting research – between domain theory and method theory – to which I add a third, missing constituent – context theory. Together, they split any study into clear jobs. Domain theory says what we are explaining – a firm’s strategy. Method theory says how we study it. And context theory, the missing element of the puzzle that I added, says what shapes the phenomenon: here, what eurointegration does to it. The three depend on each other: domain theory sets the question, context theory supplies the conditions that answer it, and method theory ties them together, and none is asked to do everything – which is what usually goes wrong when one field borrows from another. I do not prescribe any particular domain, method, or context theory. That choice is the researcher’s, to be made according to what best fits the study and explains it most powerfully.

That leaves one question: where does the context theory come from? This is where EU studies come in – that is where I found suitable candidates. The easiest route is to borrow: take an EU theory off the shelf and apply it to firms unchanged. But pure borrowing leaves eurointegration vague, the theory never quite fits, and the two sides stay disconnected. I suggest translation instead. By translation I mean reworking an EU theory’s core explanatory logic for the level of firms and sectors while keeping it recognisably tied to the original – the idea, long familiar in organisation studies, that concepts are transformed as they travel between fields. Translation preserves a theory’s core mechanism, its source of variation, and the conditions under which it holds, so it still does real work as context theory.

Done this way, five EU traditions become five context theories that management research can use. EU-induced domestic change becomes a regulatory adaptation context; differentiated integration becomes a heterogeneity context, since a diversified firm faces not one European market but several; conditionality becomes an anticipatory alignment context, explaining why some firms align before any legal obligation, drawn by the prospect of future market access; multi-level governance becomes a multi-principal context; and politicisation becomes a legitimacy and uncertainty context, where contested integration turns the durability of the rules themselves into a strategic risk.

My wineries sit exactly here. In EU-aspiring countries the institutional environment is neither fully domestic nor fully EU-internal: conditionality drives domestic reform, which generates firm-facing pressure long before membership, and firms respond not with automatic compliance but with a range of options – acquiescence, compromise, avoidance, defiance, or manipulation. To explain why one Moldovan or Georgian producer aligns early with EU standards while its neighbour waits, generic management theory is not enough, and macro-level EU theory is not enough. We need both, to bridge the macro–micro divide in research.

So this is my claim, and my call: to treat eurointegration as the complex context in which our phenomena are embedded – something that must be specified and theorised properly, and that is best understood through EU studies. The way to do our own work well is to translate rather than merely borrow, and to fold that translation into frameworks of our own. Built that way, eurointegration context becomes a bridge the two fields can cross toward each other – a vote for interdisciplinarity, not as a fashionable label, but as the most relevant way to study organisations whose strategic world is shaped by eurointegration and to co-create and share knowledge across two fields.

The post Eurointegration as context and a bridge between fields appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

By CIVICUS
Jun 17 2026 (IPS)

 
CIVICUS discusses a proposed United Nations (UN) tax treaty with Jenny Ricks, General Secretary of Fight Inequality Alliance, a global movement that organises to counter the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a small elite.

Jenny Ricks

The UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation is a proposed international treaty currently under negotiation. It aims to make global tax governance more inclusive, transparent and equitable, shifting it away from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and giving the global majority a genuine say in rules that have long been set by wealthy states.

Why do we need a global tax treaty, and what would an ambitious one look like?

Every year, trillions of dollars are drained from public services through tax avoidance, tax havens and sweetheart deals negotiated by and for the wealthiest corporations and people on the planet. This is a system designed by a powerful few, and it’s working exactly as intended. Countries across the global majority are losing money they urgently need for climate adaptation, hospitals and schools while billionaires park fortunes in jurisdictions that ask no questions.

An ambitious treaty must set minimum effective tax rates on corporate profits and extreme wealth, make automatic information sharing a baseline rather than an aspiration, and put in place binding commitments rather than voluntary frameworks that elites can walk away from when the political heat rises. The goal has to be redistribution at scale. Anything less is rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.

How does the UN Convention compare to the OECD’s approach, and where might it fall short?

The OECD process was built by rich countries, for rich countries. The global majority had only observer status in negotiations that fundamentally shaped their economic futures. That’s the original sin of the existing framework and no amount of technical refinement changes the underlying power imbalance baked into it.

The UN Convention changes the venue and potentially changes the power balance. When every country has a voice and a vote, the interests of the majority of the world’s people have at least a fighting chance of being reflected in the outcome.

The shortcomings are real, though. Ambition gets negotiated down. Large economies drag their feet, threaten opt-outs or simply refuse to ratify. The convention’s potential is significant, but potential and outcome are very different things, and we have seen promising processes hollowed out before. Without a fundamental rethinking of the international system, including the UN itself, to put power firmly in the hands of the global majority, enforcement will remain elusive.

Who’s pushing the treaty forward, and who’s standing in the way?

States with the most to gain have shown the most political courage, while those that have profited most from the existing architecture are throwing sand in the gears. This pattern is not coincidental. Governments protecting the interests of their wealthiest people and most powerful corporations are the obstacle. The barriers are political, rooted in elite self-interest, and naming that clearly matters.

The negotiations are ongoing and fast-moving. For the latest developments, the Tax Justice Network database is the best place to look.

How is civil society influencing the treaty process?

The movement to tax the super-rich has to be built from the national to the global level. Movements shape what’s considered possible before politicians decide what’s acceptable. When we mobilise people in Kenya, Malaysia and Peru, in the streets and in people’s assemblies, we change the political cost calculation for decision-makers domestically and internationally. We demonstrate that there’s a constituency demanding this change, that it’s a matter of survival for millions of families, not an abstraction debated in Geneva conference rooms.

Fight Inequality Alliance and our allies have worked to surface frontline voices and lived experience in spaces that tend to run on position papers and spreadsheets. We have supported national alliances to bring their governments to the table with clear demands. We have made visible who benefits from the status quo, and that visibility increases accountability. Civil society doesn’t win these fights alone, but without sustained pressure from organised movements, the political space to win them simply doesn’t open.

What do civil society and states need to do to ensure equitable global taxation?

States that have pushed hardest for an ambitious convention must hold firm. Dilution always comes in the final stages, when powerful interests feel threatened. They should ratify promptly, implement genuinely and resist pressure from wealthier governments to hollow out enforcement mechanisms.

For civil society, the task is sustained pressure and political education. People need to understand the connection between tax justice and the hospital that closed, the school that’s crumbling, the debt that their governments cannot escape. That connection is real and it’s political, and once people see it, they don’t unsee it. That’s how movements grow and how the terms of debate shift. We need more of that, faster and bigger, and we need organisations with resources and reach to invest in building those connections alongside us, rather than commenting on the process from a distance.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter
Jenny Ricks/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Global governance: power politics tests global rules CIVICUS | State of Civil Society Report 2026
UN at 80: a struggle for renewal in a time of crises CIVICUS Lens 19.Sep.2025
Trillions at stake in quest for tax justice CIVICUS Lens 31.Mar.2025

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

  

 

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Un climat de terreur règne depuis plusieurs jours dans la cellule Bel Air 2, un quartier de la ville de Kolwezi( Lualaba), à la suite de violents affrontements à l’arme blanche entre gangs de jeunes désœuvrés communément appelés « shegués ». 

Face à cette escalade de violence qui s'accompagne de pillages, de nombreux habitants terrifiés se voient contraints d'abandonner leurs habitations pour se réfugier dans des zones plus sécurisées.

The next meeting of the Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE) is scheduled to take place on Monday, 22 June 2026, 15.00 - 18.30 and Tuesday, 23 June 2026, 9.00 - 12.30 and 14.30 - 18.30 in Brussels (room SPINELLI 1G3).

Further information about the SEDE meetings can be found here.
_______________________
SEDE missions 2026:

• Canada - 26-28 May 2026
• Taiwan - 30 March - 2 April 2026
• Poland and Czechia - 16-18 February 2026
• Ukraine - 5-6 February 2026

SEDE missions 2025:

• Djibouti - 27-29 October 2025
  
• Greenland - 15-19 September 2025
  
• Norway - 27-30 May 2025
• Moldova and Ukraine - 14-17 April 2025
  
• Bosnia and Herzegovina - 24-27 February 2025
• Israel and Palestine - 5-8 February 2025

SEDE missions 2024:

• United Kingdom - 28-30 October 2024
• Ukraine - 25-26 October 2024

SEDE Committee meetings' calendar 2026
SEDE Committee meetings' calendar 2025
EP calendar 2026
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The next meeting of the Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE) is scheduled to take place on Monday, 22 June 2026, 15.00 - 18.30 and Tuesday, 23 June 2026, 9.00 - 12.30 and 14.30 - 18.30 in Brussels (room SPINELLI 1G3).

Further information about the SEDE meetings can be found here.
_______________________
SEDE missions 2026:

• Canada - 26-28 May 2026
• Taiwan - 30 March - 2 April 2026
• Poland and Czechia - 16-18 February 2026
• Ukraine - 5-6 February 2026

SEDE missions 2025:

• Djibouti - 27-29 October 2025
  
• Greenland - 15-19 September 2025
  
• Norway - 27-30 May 2025
• Moldova and Ukraine - 14-17 April 2025
  
• Bosnia and Herzegovina - 24-27 February 2025
• Israel and Palestine - 5-8 February 2025

SEDE missions 2024:

• United Kingdom - 28-30 October 2024
• Ukraine - 25-26 October 2024

SEDE Committee meetings' calendar 2026
SEDE Committee meetings' calendar 2025
EP calendar 2026
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

On 24 June, Committee on Foreign Affairs will host its Interparliamentary Committee Meeting on enlargement. More than 50 members of national parliaments from the EU Member States and enlargement countries will be present to exchange views with AFET members. There will be two sessions, focusing on seizing the momentum in the enlargement process and the role of parliaments in progressing EU accession.
Mathieu Bousquet (DG ENEST, European Commission) and Joachim Koops (Global Governance Institute and Leiden University) will deliver keynote speeches in the respective sessions.
Location : ANTALL (4Q2)
Draft programme
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

On 24 June, Committee on Foreign Affairs will host its Interparliamentary Committee Meeting on enlargement. More than 50 members of national parliaments from the EU Member States and enlargement countries will be present to exchange views with AFET members. There will be two sessions, focusing on seizing the momentum in the enlargement process and the role of parliaments in progressing EU accession.
Mathieu Bousquet (DG ENEST, European Commission) and Joachim Koops (Global Governance Institute and Leiden University) will deliver keynote speeches in the respective sessions.
Location : ANTALL (4Q2)
Draft programme
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

At its meeting on 23 June, the Joint SEDE–TRAN Committee will vote on the draft report concerning the proposed Regulation on Military Mobility. The draft report contains several amendments aimed at facilitating the transport of military equipment, goods, and personnel, while minimising and mitigating the impact of such movements on civilian transport.
Agenda - Joint committee procedure (Rule 59)
Webstreaming - EP Multimedia Centre
Framework of measures to facilitate the transport of military equipment, goods and personnel across the Union
Committee draft report
Legislative Proposal: Regulation on establishing a framework of measures to facilitate the transport of military equipment, goods and personnel across the Union
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

At its meeting on 23 June, the Joint SEDE–TRAN Committee will vote on the draft report concerning the proposed Regulation on Military Mobility. The draft report contains several amendments aimed at facilitating the transport of military equipment, goods, and personnel, while minimising and mitigating the impact of such movements on civilian transport.
Agenda - Joint committee procedure (Rule 59)
Webstreaming - EP Multimedia Centre
Framework of measures to facilitate the transport of military equipment, goods and personnel across the Union
Committee draft report
Legislative Proposal: Regulation on establishing a framework of measures to facilitate the transport of military equipment, goods and personnel across the Union
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Tout est fin prêt pour le lancement de la session ordinaire de l’Examen d’État (Exetat) édition 2026 sur l'ensemble du territoire national.

Staatliche Beihilfen stützen krisenbetroffene Banken – Wettbewerbseffekte unterscheiden sich je nach Instrument – Gezielte Ausgestaltung entscheidend für künftige Krisen Staatliche Beihilfen haben dazu beigetragen, den Bankensektor in der Finanzkrise funktionsfähig zu halten und größere ...

Germany, Manfred Weber's home country, puts more into the EU budget than it gets back and wants cuts

On 24 June, Committee on Foreign Affairs will host its Interparliamentary Committee Meeting on enlargement. More than 50 members of national parliaments from the EU Member States and enlargement countries will be present to exchange views with AFET members. There will be two sessions, focusing on seizing the momentum in the enlargement process and the role of parliaments in progressing EU accession.
Mathieu Bousquet (DG ENEST, European Commission) and Joachim Koops (Global Governance Institute and Leiden University) will deliver keynote speeches in the respective sessions.
Meetings with National Parliaments
ICM Draft programme
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

On 24 June, Committee on Foreign Affairs will host its Interparliamentary Committee Meeting on enlargement. More than 50 members of national parliaments from the EU Member States and enlargement countries will be present to exchange views with AFET members. There will be two sessions, focusing on seizing the momentum in the enlargement process and the role of parliaments in progressing EU accession.
Mathieu Bousquet (DG ENEST, European Commission) and Joachim Koops (Global Governance Institute and Leiden University) will deliver keynote speeches in the respective sessions.
Meetings with National Parliaments
ICM Draft programme
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

In January 2027, the first Conference of the Parties to the new United Nations High Seas Treaty will take place. The meeting is expected to address key conflicts between marine conservation and ocean use in the context of climate change. The 2024 ad­visory opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on climate change is therefore once again attracting attention. Many observers had expected the opinion to clarify the relationship between ocean protection and utilisation in climate policy. Such clarification is particularly important in relation to emerging marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) technologies, which seek to enhance oceanic carbon drawdown in order to mitigate climate change. ITLOS confirmed that states are obliged to protect the ocean from pollution caused by atmospheric CO₂. However, it left open the question of whether mCDR should be regarded as marine pollution or as a contribution to marine environmental protection. This ambiguity could be mobilised politically to either promote or restrict mCDR. International organisations, EU institutions, and national authorities should therefore prepare for competing inter­pretations of the advisory opinion that may shape future climate and ocean governance.

Dans une rencontre très attendue de la Coupe du Monde, les Lions de la Teranga du Sénégal ont courbé l’échine devant les Bleus de la France sur le score de 1-3, au terme d’un match intense où efficacité et maîtrise ont fait la différence, ce mardi 16 juin aux États-Unis.

Malgré une prestation courageuse et engagée, les Lions de la Teranga n’ont pas su contenir la puissance offensive des Bleus pour leur première rencontre dans cette phase de groupes de cette compétition planétaire.

The pain from their injuries hasn’t gone away. Meanwhile, they face challenges in earning a livelihood.